Ozone and Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Time-Series Studies and Comparison to a Multi-City Study (The National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study)

While many time-series studies of ozone and daily mortality identified positive associations,others yielded null or inconclusive results. We performed a meta-analysis of 144 effect estimates from 39 time-series studies, and estimated pooled effects by lags, age groups,cause-specific mortality, and concentration metrics. We compared results to estimates from the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS), a time-series study of 95 large U.S. cities from 1987 to 2000. Both meta-analysis and NMMAPS results provided strong evidence of a short-term association between ozone and mortality, with larger effects for cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, the elderly, and current day ozone exposure as compared to other single day lags. In both analyses, results were not sensitive to adjustment for particulate matter and model specifications. In the meta-analysis we found that a 10 ppb increase in daily ozone is associated with a 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.53, 1.12%) increase in total mortality, whereas the corresponding NMMAPS estimate is 0.25%(0.12, 0.39%). Meta-analysis results were consistently larger than those from NMMAPS,indicating publication bias. Additional publication bias is evident regarding the choice of lags in time-series studies, and the larger heterogeneity in posterior city-specific estimates in the meta-analysis, as compared with NMAMPS.

RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.